U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–809 PDF 2014

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Serial No. 113–109 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 1 

The Honorable Tom Marino, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ............................ 3 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations ................................................ 4 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 6 

WITNESS 

The Honorable Michele M. Leonhart, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations ...... 25 

Additional Material submitted by the Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations ........................................................................................................... 39 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Michele M. Leonhart, 

Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration ........................................... 46 

(1) 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:13 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

(acting Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Chaffetz, Gowdy, Scott, Conyers, Pierluisi, and Chu. 

Also Present: Representative Marino. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Caroline Lynch, Chief Counsel; Robert 

Parmiter, Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General 

Counsel; Brian Northcutt, Counsel; Alicia Church, Clerk; (Majority) 

Ron LeGrand, Counsel; Vanessa Chen, Counsel; Danielle Brown, 

Parliamentarian; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good morning. The Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the 

Subcommittee at any time, and we welcome our witnesses today. 

I will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. Welcome, Administrator Leonhart, to your first appearance before the 

House Judiciary Committee since June of 2012. We thank you for 

your service, and are happy to have you here with us today. 

Just last week, this Committee reported two bills that directly affect DEA operations. H.R. 4299 addresses concerns that I and other 

Members have with the increasing length of time DEA has expended in recent years to schedule new controlled substances, thus 

delaying patient access to new therapies. 

Reducing these scheduling time frames is important, but it 

should not be achieved by eliminating the Drug Enforcement Administration’s critical role in the scheduling process. The substitute 

amendment I offered in markup codified a reasonable shorter 

scheduling time frame while preserving its vital role in the scheduling process. 

H.R. 4771 adds 25 new substances to the list of anabolic steroids 

in the Controlled Substances Act. In cooperation with our Democratic colleagues, the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a 

substitute amendment to remove an unnecessary and largely re-
2 

dundant criminal penalty and streamline the civil penalties for the 

illicit manufacture, distribution, and dispensation of these substances. 

Earlier this year, this Committee collaborated with our Energy 

and Commerce Committee colleagues on another piece of legislation, H.R. 4709, which streamlines the process for the revocation 

or suspension of a registration to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances. 

It is indisputable that our Nation is facing a public health crisis 

due to prescription drug abuse, and we know that much of the illicit activity that diverts prescription drugs from the legitimate 

supply chain happens in the United States. However, we cannot 

solve that problem by simply cutting off legitimate access to prescription drugs. 

While H.R. 4709 is not a perfect bill, and I invite DEA’s additional comments to improve the bill, we must ensure that Federal 

law punishes the bad actors who illicitly divert drugs from the supply chain while protecting legitimate, law abiding businesses. 

Under my leadership, this Committee will continue to conduct robust oversight of the DEA to ensure that vigorous enforcement of 

our Federal drug laws does not compromise responsible regulation 

of prescription drugs and patient access to life improving or even 

life saving medications. 

Unfortunately, vigorous enforcement of our Federal drug laws 

has been repeatedly compromised by this Administration. President 

Obama and Attorney General Holder have repeatedly demonstrated their disregard for the Constitution and the founding 

principle of separation of powers. 

They have circumvented the legislative process, ignored the will 

of Congress and the American people, and usurped the constitutional role of the legislative branch by unilaterally changing or ignoring Federal laws with which we disagree. 

These policies have touched many areas and taken many forms, 

not the least of which is the frontal assault on Federal drug enforcement and sentencing. 

Since 2009, and at the specific direction of Attorney General Eric 

Holder, the Justice Department has issued directives and memos 

with the goal of softening its enforcement of Federal drug laws to 

a level not seen in the 40 year history of the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

Specifically, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General 

have directed Federal prosecutors to not pursue cases against certain offenders, even though they violated Federal law. 

Directed Federal prosecutors to selectively enforce Federal financial crimes against institutions handling marijuana proceeds, directed Federal prosecutors not to allege drug quantities in cases 

where the quantity could potentially trigger mandatory minimum 

sentences. 

Directed Federal prosecutors not to object to motions by defense 

counsel to apply lower proposed sentencing guidelines, and initiated a campaign to solicit clemency petitions from an entire class 

of Federal drug offenders. 

Whether we agree on the policy is beside the point. The President has a constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faith-
3 

fully executed. The ‘‘take care’’ clause requires the President to enforce all constitutionally valid acts of Congress regardless of his 

own Administration’s view of their wisdom or policy. 

These unilateral executive actions have put the DEA, and especially its line agents, in an impossible position. They must now 

choose between doing their job and obeying their boss. 

As an example of this Hobson’s choice, we need look no further 

than the testimony of the witness that appears before us today. 

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 30, 

2014, Administrator Leonhart refused to support legislation to 

slash mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking offenses 

when she remarked ‘‘Having been in law enforcement for 33 years 

and a Baltimore City police officer before that, I can tell you that 

for me and for the agents that work for DEA, mandatory minimums have been very important to our investigations.’’ 

Following her testimony, it has been well documented that Ms. 

Leonhart was ‘‘called in’’ by the Attorney General for an ‘‘one on 

one chat about her recent insubordination.’’ Apparently, in this Administration, a dedication to enforcing the law amounts to ‘‘insubordination.’’ 

The selective enforcement of Federal law and lack of respect for 

the constitutional separation of powers has become a hallmark of 

the Obama administration. It is a source of profound concern for 

me and the Members of this Committee. 

Again, it is Congress’ responsibility to make policy decisions 

about whether to address mandatory minimums and other hot button items. It is the Administration’s responsibility to enforce the 

laws. 

Administrator Leonhart, I look forward to your testimony regarding the challenges facing the DEA today. 

In consultation with the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 

I ask unanimous consent to allow me to yield briefly to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is not a Member of this Subcommittee but is a Member of the full Committee, and is keenly 

interested in the issues before us today, and who also needs to slip 

away to another Committee. 

So, without objection, I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino, for his comments. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. I truly appreciate this. Administrator, thank you for being 

here. Thank you for what the professionals at DEA do to fight the 

illegal distribution of narcotics. 

There are heroes in your agency, and I have worked with them 

directly. I cannot overstate my respect for the DEA and its mission. 

My congressional colleagues, Chu, Blackburn, Welch, and I authored a bill that will clarify the responsibilities of the legitimate 

prescription supply industry and facilitate collaboration. Our bill 

passed the House unanimously - unanimously. Today, companion 

legislation will be introduced in the Senate by Senators Hatch and 

Whitehouse. 

Let me say this with the utmost respect. Congress is sending the 

DEA a message. You should take a serious look at your regulatory 

culture and seek collaboration with legitimate companies that want 

to do the right thing, legitimate companies. 
4 

Big fines make headlines, but that is all they do. Press releases 

do not save lives. 

It is my understanding that Joe Rannazzisi, a senior DEA official, has publicly accused we sponsors of the bill of ‘‘supporting 

criminals.’’ This offends me immensely. You know before coming to 

Congress I was a prosecutor and an United States Attorney. I 

worked to put away violent felons and drug dealers. 

I ask that you commit to me today that you will look into this 

and get back to me on whether you think that statement is acceptable behavior. Such conduct is not acceptable and it is unbecoming 

of the DEA, an agency that I have the utmost respect for. I would 

like to hear from you on this in writing after this hearing. 

Finally, at our April 8 Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, 

the Attorney General suggested he should meet with industry representatives and asked me to facilitate that. I have attempted to 

do that but to date, no such meeting has taken place. I am disappointed that DOJ staff has not made this a priority, and I will 

be following up with a letter reminding the Attorney General of our 

exchange and his personal commitment. 

Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Scott, thank you so much, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman, and it is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the 

gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for his opening statement. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to thank you 

for cooperatively working with the Minority last week to develop 

bills on drug scheduling that we could all support. The original 

versions had several problematic provisions which you addressed 

without diluting the effectiveness of the legislation. 

I am pleased to join you this morning in convening this oversight 

hearing on the Drug Enforcement Administration, and I would like 

to thank Administrator Leonhart for her years of dedicated service 

and for appearing before us today. I must also thank the thousands 

of dedicated DEA employees who enforce our laws every day, many 

of whom are putting their lives on the line to do so. 

The DEA is involved in drug enforcement activities all over the 

world. However, it is not clear that all of these activities are as effective or as important as others in stopping or reducing the 

scourge of drug use. 

In general, there are supply side strategies and demand side 

strategies to reduce drug use. Research indicates that demand reductions through prevention, education, and treatment can be 

much more effective than supply side reduction through interdiction and law enforcement efforts. 

I am hoping the Administrator will be able to shed some light 

on DEA’s strategy with respect to prevention and intervention 

strategies and what works and what does not work. 

One of the big problems we have in this country with illegal 

drugs as well as illegal use of prescription drugs is that there is 

a huge demand for them. The history of the war on drugs shows 

us two things. First, if there is a demand for the product, suppliers 

will find a way to provide it, no matter what cost or no matter 

what the sanctions. 
5 

Second, the large amounts of drugs interdicted or captured annually represents only a small fraction of the drugs being trafficked. 

In fact, evidence suggests that the street price for some of the most 

dangerous drugs has actually gone down while purity has gone up, 

and drug use has increased or stayed about the same. 

Therefore, the so-called ‘‘war on drugs’’ has had negligible effect 

on the drug trade at the highest levels but it has imprisoned legions of street level dealers and users. Given that we have already 

spent billions of dollars without a significant impact, the question 

remains how much more would we have to spend in order to 

achieve significant results. 

While drug use in all major categories, among White Americans, 

is as high or higher than the drug abuse among Black and Hispanic Americans, the vast majority of those imprisoned for drug 

violations are Black and Hispanic. 

The war on drugs has been waged almost exclusively in poor 

communities of color, even though the data shows that minorities 

are no more likely to use illegal drugs or commit crimes. Black 

Americans make up 12 percent of the U.S. population, but almost 

50 percent of those are incarcerated for drug violations. 

Drug convictions alone make up about two-thirds of the increase 

in the Federal population that has exploded over the last few years. 

The excessive and discriminatory sentencing penalties from drug 

convictions are driven mainly by mandatory minimums and also by 

consecutive counts and enhancements that are so Draconian that 

many are serving life sentences or the equivalent in years, even for 

first time, low level offenders. 

In fiscal year 2012, 16 percent of convicted drug defendants were 

convicted of offenses carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. 

These harsh penalties were intended to be used against kingpins 

and leaders and criminal syndicates. 

In reality, data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission shows they 

are used against couriers, street level dealers, and addicts. More 

than half of these defendants had the lowest criminal history category at the time of their convictions. 

Mandatory minimums are sound bytes masquerading as crime 

policy. They sentence people before they are even charged or convicted based solely on the name of the crime. No consideration is 

given to how minor the role may be that one played or whether or 

not they are a first offender, a minor, or an abused woman under 

the control of a violent boyfriend. 

Even if the prosecutor, the judge, the defense counsel, and probation officer all agree that a mandatory minimum is too severe for 

a particular offender in a specific case, there is no choice. The 

judge’s hands are tied and the judge must impose the mandatory 

minimum as a matter of law. 

All the research we have shows that mandatory minimums waste 

money, disrupt rational sentencing considerations, discriminates 

against minorities, and often require judges to impose sentences 

that simply violate common sense when compared to traditional 

proportional sentencing. 

As a result of the emotional appeal of the ‘‘tough on crime’’ policies, the United States has the dubious distinction of being the 

world’s leader in incarceration, jailing 700 people for every 100,000 
6 

population. Most countries incarcerate about 100. The closest competitor is Russia at about 600, China locks up about 116 per 

100,000, India, about 36. 

Research on the states estimates that any ratio over 350 per 

100,000, for any ratio above that, the crime reduction value begins 

to diminish. Anything over 500 per 100,000 becomes counterproductive, messing up so many families, wasting so much money, 

having so many people with felony conviction records that you are 

actually adding to crime, not reducing crime. That is at 500 per 

100,000. The United States’ average is over 700. 

When we look at the lock up rate in the minority community, it 

is even worse. Ten states lock up African Americans at the rate of 

approximately 4,000 per 100,000. The rates of incarceration we 

have in this country and looking at crime and simply suggesting 

that the main problem we have is we are not locking up enough 

people just does not meet with science, experience or common 

sense. 

So, one is left to wonder about the motivation to continue what 

amounts to a failed system in reducing drug trafficking and abuse 

when we consider how ineffective and costly the punitive supply reduction strategy has been. 

Reliance on incarceration is not free. When a drug dealer gets sentenced to 50 years at $30,000 a year, that amounts to over approximately $1.5 million. The day after the drug dealer is sent 

away, his territory is taken over, so you really have not done anything in reducing crime. That same $1.5 million, if it had gone to the Boys and Girls 

Clubs, who held their annual congressional breakfast yesterday, 

could have been put to much better use. Maybe if we had just 

spent $500,000 locking up the guy and had $1 million for the Boys 

and Girls Clubs, we could put hundreds of young people on the 

right track and kept them on the right track rather than the excessive incarceration for just one person. 

Those are some of the things that I hope we discuss today, Mr. 

Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I very much thank the gentleman for his comments, and I am now pleased to recognize the Ranking Member of 

the full Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, the former 

Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Conyers, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking 

Member Scott. Welcome, Administrator Leonhart. Pleasure to have 

you here. 

The Drug Enforcement Administration is tasked with enforcing 

the most critical failing, in my mind, of our Nation’s criminal justice system, namely the war on drugs. 

I want to discuss two things. First and foremost, the war on 

drugs has disproportionately impacted communities of color, and 

second, federalizing street crime undermines constitutional principles of limiting government prosecution to charges that cannot or 

should not be brought in state courts. 

To begin with, the collateral damage of the war on drugs has disproportionately harmed minorities, obviously. Admittedly, discrimination has permeated our Nation’s history since its founding. The 
7 

Constitution itself devalued slaves, former slaves, as three-fifths of 

a man. Through the Civil War and although the Civil War was 

fought to abolish slavery, Jim Crow in its wake codified disparate 

treatment as the supreme law of the land. 

So, we have been wrestling with this for quite a while historically. While it has been 60 years since Brown v. Board of Education struck down the abhorrent doctrine of separate but equal, 

and 50 years since the march on Washington and the passage of 

the Civil Rights Act, the casualties of our war on drugs continues 

to be separate and unequal. 

The malignant vestiges of racism, unconscious or not, lurk within 

our Federal criminal justice system. Criminal justice and drug enforcement are weeded out by human beings with real human 

failings, including bias and self interest. Not all of them but some 

of them. 

The statistics tell the story of the racially disproportionate impact of our Federal drug laws and policies. Our country has spent 

over $2.5 trillion on the war on drugs. Our Federal prison system 

is currently at 132 percent over capacity. Half of all Federal prisoners are drug offenders. 

In 2013, Blacks and Hispanics comprised almost 75 percent of all 

Federal drug offenders. Currently, almost 40 percent of all Federal 

prisoners are Black and 35 percent are Hispanic. Blacks are arrested for drug offenses at rates two to five times higher than 

Whites. 

This is despite the fact that national data shows that people of 

all races use and traffic drugs at about the same rate. People of all 

races use and traffic drugs at about the same rate, yet African 

American and Hispanic men and women are sentenced and imprisoned for Federal drug offenses at disproportionately higher rates 

for virtually every kind of drug. 

While only 4 percent of Federal crimes carry mandatory minimum sentences, 34 percent of those in Federal prison are serving 

mandatory sentences with Blacks and Hispanics, of course, receiving sentences that are often years longer than Whites in similar 

cases. 

Before we identify solutions, we must recognize how our laws 

and policies along with systemic problems writ large in our Federal 

system interact with the Drug Enforcement Administration’s practices in the war on drugs to contribute to this disparate impact. 

No longer does Jim Crow and overt racism move the day, but 

rather euphemisms such as ‘‘those who fit the profile,’’ ‘‘who raise 

reasonable suspicion,’’ ‘‘who reside in high crime areas,’’ where stop 

and frisk policies are the norm. 

Now, to be fair, bias creeps in at every branch of our Federal 

Government, from the initial decision of where and whom to monitor, which cases are accepted for prosecution, which defendants to 

charge with mandatory enhancements, and ultimately which defendants receive upward or downward variant sentences. 

Particularly troubling to me from a civil liberties’ perspective are 

the DEA’s civil asset forfeiture practices. The Drug Enforcement 

Administration in conjunction with state authorities can seize cash 

and property from men and women who are not convicted, much 

less charged with a crime. This incentivizes state and local law en-
8 

forcement agencies to engage in these seizures so as to apply the 

fruits of that bounty to their own budgets. 

The burden rests on the property owner to prove his innocence 

in a civil suit that costs frequently thousands of dollars in legal 

fees and months’ imprisonment. 

Much like we saw in the DEA’s Operation Pipeline in the 1990’s, 

the overwhelming majority of those targeted for those traffic stops 

are Black or Hispanic. Private contractors, such as Black Asphalt 

and Desert Snow, working with state and local authorities, have 

made it so driving while Black or Hispanic means that one is presumed guilty absent any evidence other than an officer’s hunch 

based on someone’s appearance. 

Our reforms need to eliminate this bounty hunting incentive and 

disparate impact that it causes. 

To declare success on the war on drugs, rather than continue 

policies that actually cause more harm than good, we must learn 

from the recent successes from our states and others around the 

globe. 

Our founding fathers recognized the value of delegating the general police power to the states and the important function that 

states serve as laboratories of innovation. We should permit these 

federalism principles to guide us in ensuring that Federal jurisdiction is limited, complimenting, but not supplanting state jurisdiction. 

I conclude by pointing out that many states and countries have 

examined similar troubling disparities in their conviction and sentencing data. In response, they eliminated or reduced mandatory 

minimums for drug offenses or diverted those cases to specialized 

drug courts and emphasized treatment and re-entry over incarceration. 

Their rewards have been not only billions in savings but also reductions in their crime, recidivism, and addiction rates. 

While these reforms may sound counterintuitive, they offer common sense, proportional, and evidence based responses to our current Federal programs and penalties that are discriminatory, destructive, and ultimately counterproductive. 

Thus, we should cooperate with the states to develop policies to 

determine whether offenses should be prosecuted in the state or 

Federal systems. 

So, accordingly, I look forward to Administrator Leonhart’s testimony about how the DEA and Congress can best address the concerns that I have identified. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and return any unused time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and 

assures him that there was not any unused time. [Laughter.] 

And thanks him for an overly thorough exposition of the issues. 

I know the issue is important to him, so I wanted to let him finish 

his opening. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. It is now my pleasure to introduce today’s witness. Michele Leonhart was unanimously confirmed as the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration in December of 

2012, and she had been Acting Administrator since November of 

2007, and served as the DEA’s Deputy Administrator since 2004. 
9 

Prior to that, she held several positions with the DEA’s Senior 

Executive Service. She served as special-agent-in- charge of the 

DEA’s Los Angeles Field Division from 1998 through 2003, and 

special-agent-in-charge of the DEA’s San Francisco Field Division 

in 1997 and 1998. 

As a career DEA special agent, Ms. Leonhart held several key 

positions as she moved through the ranks of the DEA. In 1995, she 

was promoted to the position of assistant special agent in charge 

of the L.A. Field Division. She has had more than 30 years in law 

enforcement beginning her career as a Baltimore City police officer 

after graduation from college in Minnesota, with a Bachelor of 

Science in Criminal Justice in 1978. 

As is the custom of this Committee, we will begin by swearing 

in the witness, so if you would please rise. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. Let the record reflect 

that the witness answered in the affirmative, and your entire written statement will be entered into the record, and we ask that you 

summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. We have a timing 

light there on the table that will assist you in that information. 

Again, welcome to the Committee. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MICHELE M. LEONHART, 

ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Ranking Member Scott, Members of this Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this 

morning. 

This Committee’s support for the Drug Enforcement Administration has been enormously important to us. I welcome this opportunity to continue working with you and share with you our recent 

accomplishments and our challenges. 

DEA in our unique capacity around the world is responsible for 

enforcing the provisions of our domestic controlled substance and 

chemical diversion trafficking laws, and is honored to work closely 

with our state, local, Federal, and international counterparts. 

In recent years, DEA’s investigations resulted in the arrest and 

conviction of major international criminals, including Viktor Bout, 

Monzer Al Kassar, Haji Bagcho, and even the former President of 

Guatemala, Alfonso Portillo. 

Most notably, DEA also supported the Mexican Government’s apprehension earlier this year of ‘‘El Chapo’’ Guzman, the head of the 

world’s largest drug trafficking organization. 

These individuals highlight just a few of the successful cases we 

have aggressively pursued each and every day. Yet, these law enforcement successes are only one part of the comprehensive strategy needed to address illicit drug use. A successful strategy must 

be comprehensive and include research, prevention, and treatment. 

There is no magic solution of the complex challenge of illicit drug 

use. 

This comprehensive strategic approach has been successful. According to an analysis by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration, illicit drug use rates are lower by approximately one-third compared to 30 years ago, and since 2006, we 
10 

have seen significant decreases in the number of past month users 

of cocaine. 

This does not mean that we are not facing real and significant 

challenges. Years of over prescribing prescription pain killers combined with decreased perceptions of risk have created millions of 

new addicts. 

DEA has responded not just with enforcement actions, but also 

pushed to reschedule Hydrocodone, a potent and addictive opioid. 

It is still readily available for legitimate use, but it is now subject 

to additional tracking, prescribing, and storage restrictions, which 

will minimize the potential for diversion. 

In addition, we have just released the final rule governing drug 

disposal. This rule expands the public’s options to safely and responsibly dispose of their unused and unwanted controlled substance prescription medications, and will make DEA’s semi-annual 

take back days unnecessary. 

While we have seen some progress to our counter-prescription 

drug abuse, we are beginning to see an increase in the trafficking 

of one of the more traditional drugs of abuse - heroin. 

After years of declining use, the availability and abuse of heroin 

is now increasing, especially among younger Americans. In response, DEA is systematically targeting high level heroin suppliers 

in partnership with state and local law enforcement authorities, 

and has seen a steady increase in heroin related enforcement efforts nationwide. 

Marijuana abuse is another grave concern for DEA, particularly 

because of changing public attitudes on its use. As you are aware, 

the Administration opposes marijuana legalization. Approximately 

19.8 million Americans have used marijuana in the past month, 

more than any other illicit drug, and this includes nearly one out 

of 15 American high school seniors who are now nearly daily marijuana users. 

Consistent with the Administration’s comprehensive approach to 

the issue, DEA also supports scientific research efforts and ensures 

that there is sufficient marijuana availability for research purposes 

through a robust process of providing Schedule I research registrations to qualified researchers. In fact, DEA has never denied a registration for a bona fide marijuana related research application. 

Looking forward, DEA will continue to build on the progress that 

we have made, and with our state and local partners, we will continue to target traffickers who operate in or whose drugs enter into 

our country. 

These investigations compliment and support our international 

partnerships where we target the most violent and prolific drug 

trafficking organizations in the world. It is clear to me as a career 

special agent and as DEA’s administrator, that not only is our mission an essential element to our national drug control strategy and 

to our Nation’s health, but also to the security of our country and 

our interests abroad. 

Thank you for your partnership, and I look forward to continuing 

to work with this Committee and Congress on these important 

issues. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leonhart follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much for your testimony. I will 

begin the questioning. Is marijuana possession use or distribution, 

medically or otherwise, legal under Federal law? 

Ms. LEONHART. No, under Federal law, any growing, cultivation, 

distribution, transportation, importation of marijuana is against 

Federal law. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Despite the fact this Administration’s current 

narrative in support of its position on sentencing reform relies on 

the supposition that too many low level, non-violent drug offenders 

are being investigated, prosecuted and incarcerated federally. 

The Justice Department’s own memo from last August providing 

guidance to Federal prosecutors stated that the Department of Justice has not historically devoted resources to prosecuting individuals whose conduct is limited to possession of small amounts of 

marijuana for personal use on private property. 

Is this statement consistent with current and past DEA enforcement priorities? 

Ms. LEONHART. DEA has never targeted drug users of any kind, 

especially marijuana users. We go after those that are trafficking, 

those that are members of organizations and cartels, those that are 

gang members that are supplying our communities. We do not target users. We do not target patients. We go after crime. We go after 

the drug traffickers. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. In fact, in contrast to what this Administration 

would have us believe, the Federal prison system is not littered 

with scores of drug users ripped out of their bedrooms by DEA tactical teams for smoking marijuana; is that correct? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is correct. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The reality is those targeted for sentencing relief by this Administration are only those whose conduct, that is 

trafficking large quantities of controlled substances, would subject 

them to mandatory minimum sentences. 

You stated previously that based upon your 33 years of law enforcement experience you believe that mandatory minimum sentences play an important role in criminal investigations. I understand that you may have been discouraged from publicly taking 

this view, but how would the removal of this important tool affect 

the DEA’s ability to carry out its mission? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, let me say I do believe that mandatory 

minimums have been very effective in our work over these many 

years, and would hope we can retain that tool. 

On the other hand, I am aware that there are a number of initiatives that are being supported by the Attorney General to look at 

the bigger problem of prison overcrowding and to look at the 

money, the budget, now so much of it going to the Bureau of Prisons and not going to different programs that could help with recidivism, drug treatments and such in the prisons. 

So, balancing those two things, yes, it has been an effective tool, 

and it is very important especially with the type of trafficker and 

the level of trafficker that DEA investigates and arrests and indicts, that these folks, these very dangerous criminals, these cartel 

members, these gang members, serve appropriate sentences. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. It has been an effective tool and it is the law 

of the land, is it not, at this point in time? 
20 

Ms. LEONHART. Right now, yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. As you know, switching to another subject, earlier this year, the House approved two amendments to the Commerce Justice Science Appropriations bill regarding industrial 

hemp. 

These amendments were largely in response to litigation between 

the DEA and the State of Kentucky over the seizure of a large 

number of hemp seeds. The amendments disallowed DEA from 

blocking the importation of hemp seeds and preventing the cultivation of industrial hemp in states where it is legal. 

If DEA does not find ways to improve the process for approving 

the importation of hemp or hemp seeds for legitimate research, it 

will continue to see the courts and Congress stepping in. 

What are your comments? What is being done to improve that 

situation? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, DEA is looking at the Farm bill and harmonizing it with the Controlled Substances Act, and actually has 

worked with several states to ensure the provisions of the Farm 

bill, which allow institutions of higher education and state agriculture departments to grow industrial hemp for research purposes. 

We have been helping them, like we have offered to help Kentucky. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I expect though this is the beginning of a process in which we are going to see the commercial production of industrial hemp, which is a historic product and a product that is 

abundant, and legitimate uses for it, but it has posed a problem in 

terms of DEA enforcement because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish it from marijuana. 

So, what are the ongoing efforts to improve the ability of the 

DEA to set up a system where you can distinguish between the two 

so that this potential industry can continue to grow but not hamper 

the ability of the DEA to enforce the law? 

Ms. LEONHART. We can get there by working with the states. In 

this particular case with Kentucky, they did not obtain the right 

registration or permit to import seeds. We have worked with other 

states now to help them get the proper registration. 

By using the process, which is importing the seeds with an import registration and by DEA working with these agricultural departments and with these institutions of higher education, we then 

at DEA will have an idea of where the hemp is grown, but it does 

pose a very significant problem for not so much DEA, but really 

our state and local partners in that you cannot distinguish—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me reclaim my time because it has expired, 

and I just want to say that as this grows, literally and figuratively, 

this is an industry that is going to grow and you are not going to 

just have state departments of agriculture and research facilities at 

universities involved, but you are going to have lots and lots, 

maybe thousands and thousands of just average American farmers 

growing this crop. 

The DEA is going to have to make adjustments and they are 

going to have to be aggressive about finding ways to more easily 

distinguish between what is going to be legal and what is going to 

be illegal. 
21 

My time has expired. I now am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for his questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Leonhart, there are 

a lot of studies that have concluded that mandatory minimums disrupt rational sentencing strategies, they waste the taxpayers’ 

money, they discriminate against minorities, and frequently require judges to impose sentences that violate common sense. 

You have indicated that many times the mandatory minimums 

are appropriate but that is, of course, not the problem, because you 

do not need a mandatory minimum to impose an inappropriate sentence. The problem is it gets imposed on those for whom it is not 

appropriate. 

Are you suggesting that the mandatory minimums do not inflict 

inappropriate punishment on anyone? 

Ms. LEONHART. I am saying, you know, when asked the question 

had these been important tools, they have been for any of us in 

drug law enforcement. The decisions on what is an appropriate sentence for what a crime is is something that Congress takes up. 

As long as there are sentences that fit the crime, sentences that 

ensure that the kingpins, the major traffickers, and those that are 

causing the violence in our communities are serving consistent sentences, then that will assist us in doing our drug law enforcement—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Are you suggesting they are not inflicted on people 

for whom there is no rational basis like girlfriends of kingpins getting decades of prison time? Are you suggesting it is never totally 

inappropriate, totally violative of common sense? 

Ms. LEONHART. I would say it depends on what their role was in 

the organization and were they violent traffickers, what were they 

trafficking, the quantities. 

Mr. SCOTT. The President’s clemency program suggests that the 

Attorney General will consider clemency for those who have already served 10 years, low level, non-violent, essentially first offenders, and then it raises the question what is a ‘‘low level, nonviolent first offender’’ doing with 10 years to begin with. 

Ms. LEONHART. Again, DEA targets the baddest of the bad, the 

worse of the worse, the highest level trafficker. 

Mr. SCOTT. They get long sentences and that is appropriate. 

What about those for whom the sentence—are you suggesting that 

you do not inflict that on people for whom the sentence violates 

common sense? 

Ms. LEONHART. I think that—— 

Mr. SCOTT. That is what the mandatory minimum requires the 

judge to do. 

Ms. LEONHART. I think it is important that there is discretion by 

the prosecutor on what they charge, and then it is up to the judge 

to sentence. 

Mr. SCOTT. Wrong. That is what a mandatory minimum requires 

a judge to impose, a sentence that violates common sense. 

Ms. LEONHART. And there are safety valves, protections, there 

are a number of things in sentencing that can be used, but I also 

support—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Ten years for non-violent, low level, first offender. 

Does that make sense to you? 
22 

Ms. LEONHART. I am sorry? 

Mr. SCOTT. Ten years, more than 10 years, because you do not 

get clemency until you have already served ten, and you have so 

much more time to serve that you need clemency; low level, nonviolent, first offender. 

Ms. LEONHART. If that first offender was trafficking large quantities of heroin that were then spread across the community, I 

think that is an appropriate sentencing. 

Mr. SCOTT. Suppose it is just a low level somebody on the tangent, girlfriend taking a message? Are you suggesting that makes 

any sense at all? 

Ms. LEONHART. I would have to know the circumstances. I just 

know that—— 

Mr. SCOTT. All circumstances because it is a mandatory minimum. 

Ms. LEONHART. If a mandatory minimum is appropriate for that 

crime, that is determined by the prosecutor who charges the crime, 

and these are decisions that are not taken into account when DEA 

investigates an organization. 

Mr. SCOTT. I mean, yeah, but we are making policy and you suggested there is some value to these mandatory minimums. Yes, 

sometimes the sentence is appropriate. Many times, it is just stupid. That is what the mandatory minimum requires the judge to 

do, and that is why we are trying to get rid of them. If people say, 

well, you know, they have value, it is kind of hard to make policy. 

Ms. LEONHART. The Attorney General is putting forward a number of initiatives under his Smart on Crime initiative, and one has 

to do with the sentencing and the clemency you are speaking of. 

He has assured us that the traffickers that we go after, the traffickers that are the most violent and are leaders of gangs, cartel 

leaders, and the most violent of those traffickers trafficking on our 

streets, will not fall under that and will serve their appropriate 

sentences. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is right, and those that do fall under that get 

stuck with the mandatory minimum anyway. That is the insanity 

of the mandatory minimum, whether it makes sense or not. I yield 

back. 

Mr. GOWDY [presiding]. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. 

Madam Administrator, I want to start by inquiring of you—I got 

a phone call from an old colleague of mine, a guy named Beattie 

Ashmore, yesterday, who told us a DEA agent that we work with 

named Randy Smith was maybe contemplating retirement. I could 

not imagine that. It seemed like last week that Randy was just 

starting. 

I want to start—I want to call a list of names to you, and if you 

would be gracious enough if you ever run into any of these folks— 

you do not have to write them down, I will give them to you—Mark 

Knight, Tony Duarte, Steve Russell, Bill Lunsford, Mark Pogh, 

Randy Smith, Kevin McLaughlin, Frank Smith, are just some of 

the DEA agents that I had the pleasure of working with. 

They represented your agency so well and so professionally, and 

it is such a difficult, hard, often times thankless job. 

If you ever have a chance to tell any of them that they are appreciated, I would be grateful to you for that. 
23 

I want to touch on a couple of things real quickly, I want to finish—there is no one in Congress that I have more personal respect 

for than Bobby Scott, so I want to finish up by talking to you about 

mandatory minimums a little bit. 

Speaking of the DEA, we prosecuted two physicians way back in 

the day for prescribing or dispensing controlled substances outside 

the course of a legitimate medical practice. I do not hear from doctors much any more. I do from time to time, not in a complaining 

way, but I do from time to time hear from drug companies. It just 

strikes me that the best way to get at folks who are abusing legal 

prescription drugs is to target the physicians. That is who is writing the prescription. 

It has been done before. There were DEA diversion agents. I assume there may still be. Even if there are diversion agents, it is 

not that hard to go into a physician’s office without establishing a 

doctor/patient relationship—one fact pattern, there was a prescription written on a cocktail napkin at a bar. Even I could win that 

case at trial. 

So, I just want to ask you to be mindful, and I am not going to 

call the name of the drug company, but it is one of the most well 

respected companies in my entire district, and I just do not want 

any of the drug companies—in interest of full disclosure, my father 

is a physician, I grew up around doctors and pharmacists. I have 

incredible respect for them. 

I do not want the message to be sent that we view them in the 

same light we view a doctor who is writing a prescription on a 

cocktail napkin for somebody he met at a bar. 

If there are reporting requirements, I am all for working with 

the drug companies. I just do not want them to feel like—because 

my understanding is if you get a prescription, the pharmacist has 

a duty to fill the prescription, unless he or she has some reason to 

suspect it. You have a drug company even further removed that is 

just getting a request for X number of drugs so this pharmacist can 

fill that prescription. 

So, if you would look into that and just make sure that we are 

including the drug companies so that they feel like they are part 

of the solution rather than surrogates for doctors who are writing 

prescriptions they should not be writing. 

Ms. LEONHART. I can assure you that we actually view distributors and manufacturers, doctors, pharmacists, the whole gamut, everyone involved in this closed system of distribution, as partners in 

trying to resolve and tamp down on this exploding prescription 

drug problem. 

We have had a number of initiatives where we are working with 

companies so that they can better understand what those signals 

are, what those red flags are, on what a suspicious order would be. 

Many times, working with them, they are actually able to then 

put out warnings or cautions to the people they are distributing to 

that it is suspicious and they are not going to fill orders. 

So, those companies are very important to helping us in our fight 

to prevent diversion. We do not look at them as the enemy. We do 

not look at them as—— 
24 

Mr. GOWDY. I am sure you do not, and I know you will do a remarkable job of communicating to them that they are partners as 

opposed to targets. 

In the few seconds I have remaining, I do not recall it being a 

crime to be the girlfriend of a drug dealer. Did that become a crime 

since I left the U.S. Attorneys Office? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is why I said I needed to know what the 

circumstances were, what drugs were they distributing. 

Mr. GOWDY. There would not be anybody serving Federal prison 

time for simply being the girlfriend or boyfriend of a drug dealer, 

nor is there anyone serving Federal prison time for being the boyfriend or girlfriend of a drug dealer and accepting a telephone call. 

You have to be convicted of conspiracy. You have to be convicted 

of a RICO activity. You have to be convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. There is nobody serving 

time for simply being the girlfriend or boyfriend of a drug dealer, 

much less serving the mandatory minimum. Agreed? 

Ms. LEONHART. Correct. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. Why do you think—in your judgment, why 

do we have mandatory minimums? What was the impetus behind 

Congress deciding we should have mandatory minimums? 

Ms. LEONHART. I came on DEA as an agent after being a police 

officer in 1979, hired by DEA in 1980. Went through the Academy. 

At the time, I can tell you that when we did our cases, the criminal 

histories we received for the people that we were investigating 

would blow your mind. It was a revolving door in and out of the 

system. 

I also can tell you that working cases in the Midwest, more than 

often I was the undercover agent. It was also surprising to see, depending on where you were in the country, the different kinds of 

sentences that people would receive for the very same crime. 

So, to see the mandatory minimums kick in, you started to see 

more consistency. You also started to see that those that have been 

routine, you know, criminals in and out of the system and increasing their involvement in drug trafficking were finally stopped by 

the types of sentences that they were sentenced to. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I am well over time and I am going to—yes, 

sir? 

Mr. SCOTT. Can I have a consent request? 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert 

into the record case histories of girlfriends who have gotten caught 

up in taking messages—if you take a message, you are part of the 

conspiracy, and you are in fact sentenced based on the weight of 

the drugs that the boyfriend is dealing, which will result in decades 

of time for people who have no meaningful role in the conspiracy. 

I would like unanimous consent to insert those case histories into 

the record. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

*The information referred to, a report titled ‘‘Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment Report,’’ is not reprinted in this hearing record but can be accessed at http:// 

www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412994-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative-State-Assessment-Report. 

pdf. 

Mr. GOWDY. I am grossly over time, and I am going to give all 

of my colleagues on the other side at least as much time as I took 

over. 

I am going to say again there is no one in Congress that I have 

more respect for than the gentleman from Virginia, who has been 

a champion on this issue for the entire time I have been in Congress, and if he says such cases exist, I believe him period. 

I would encourage them to pursue post-conviction relief, because 

they had a lousy criminal defense attorney, if all they did was take 

a telephone call and the relative conduct racked up and accumulated such that they reached a mandatory minimum. 

Before I recognize the next colleague, Madam Administrator, 

there are currently ways to get around mandatory minimums. 

There is Rule 35. There is the safety valve. I assume there are still 

5K 1.1s, although the stated guidelines have changed. 

So, the notion that there is no way to get around a mandatory 

minimum even today is not accurate; right? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is correct. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You startled me today 

with some of your testimony, Madam Administrator. I would like 

to find out if you are familiar with data from over 17 states that 

demonstrates eliminating or reducing mandatory minimums has 

not statistically affected rates of cooperation or pleas. 

Ms. LEONHART. I am not familiar with that data. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I will put something in the record and give 

you some information on it.* 

Administrator Leonhart, it is fair to say based on Sentencing 

Commission data that the majority of drug convictions are of couriers, mules, drivers, low level dealers? So, I ask if you agree that 

existing state laws cover that conduct as well. 

Ms. LEONHART. That is correct. 

Mr. CONYERS. Sure. Okay. Would you also agree that kingpins 

and leaders do not by any stretch of the imagination comprise the 

bulk of the convictions, drug convictions, in this area? 

Ms. LEONHART. When DEA pursues drug investigations, the goal 

is to disrupt and dismantle an entire organization. So yes, there 

are leaders, heads of organizations, lieutenants at the top, but 

there are also all those facilitators that help the organization in 

their crimes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, that is who gets caught, the little guys, the 

mules, drivers, low level dealers. I am talking about an examination which I will be doing after this hearing that kingpins—the 

people at the top very seldom get convicted. That is the issue that 

I am raising with you for a discussion at this time. 

Ms. LEONHART. Ranking Member, I would have to tell you that 

DEA has been very successful in taking down the leadership of organizations. Just look at our kingpin program. Of all of the kingpins identified since 2002, DEA has indicted over 75 percent of 
30 

them. Most of them do not even operate on our shores, and yet we 

have been able to arrest over 55 percent of them, and we have extradited to the United States over 33 percent of them. 

So, we are investigating them. We are indicting them or arresting them, and we are actually extraditing them to the United 

States. They are prosecuted and they serve long sentences. 

Mr. CONYERS. What I am suggesting is the leaders and kingpins 

do not comprise anywhere near the bulk of the convictions. I would 

like to follow this up with you or your staff in terms of a study of 

the statements that you just made in that regard. 

Let me turn now to this final question. The Drug Enforcement 

Administration is a component of the Department of Justice. So, 

would you agree that its official position supports the Smarter Sentencing Act which reduces mandatory minimums? 

Ms. LEONHART. We support the Attorney General’s initiatives 

under Smart on Crime. 

Mr. CONYERS. And that includes the reduction of mandatory 

minimums, which is part of the Smarter Sentencing Act? 

Ms. LEONHART. We support the initiatives forwarded by the Attorney General with his assurances that these will not impact the 

traffickers that the DEA spends the majority of our time going 

after, the kingpins, the violent traffickers, the gang leaders and 

such. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I am going to have to compare that with 

some other comments that you have made because it seems to me 

that there is a certain contradiction between your response to this 

question and other comments that you have made here today before the Committee. 

Well, here is the Huffington Post. ‘‘Obama’s DEA Chief refuses 

to support drug sentencing reforms.’’ I do not know how accurate 

it is and I do not know—it is dated from a few months ago. That 

is a part of the contradiction that bothers me between some of the 

statements and comments that you have made here today. 

We will be following this much more carefully now that you have 

had a chance to come before us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. The Chair 

will now recognize the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Chairman. Administrator, thank you 

for appearing before the Subcommittee. You and I met in February 

2012 to discuss drug trafficking and related violence in Puerto 

Rico. In June of that year, we spoke again about this issue when 

you testified before this Subcommittee. Finally, we spoke by phone 

in April of 2013. 

I have also spoken on multiple occasions with Vito Guarino, the 

special-agent-in-charge of the DEA’s Caribbean Division based in 

Puerto Rico. 

As you know, I have placed great pressure on DOJ and DHS to 

increase the level of resources dedicated to Puerto Rico, which is 

a major trans-shipment point for drugs destined for the U.S. Mainland. 

The need for Federal law enforcement agencies to enhance their 

efforts in Puerto Rico is particularly important because according 
31 

to DEA, drug traffickers are increasingly using the Caribbean region to transport cocaine to the States. 

In late 2013, DEA officials were quoted as saying that the percentage of U.S. bound cocaine trafficked through the Caribbean had 

risen to 14 percent, which was double the percentage in 2012. 

Puerto Rico is an attractive jurisdiction for drug traffickers because the island is an American jurisdiction within the U.S. Customs Zone. 

The role of Federal law enforcement agents is simple, to make 

Puerto Rico a less appealing operational environment for drug traffickers. That requires the Federal Government to develop a comprehensive strategy and to allocate the resources required to implement that strategy. 

In terms of strategy, Congress has required ONDCP to prepare 

a counter-narcotics strategy for the Caribbean Border, with an emphasis on Puerto Rico. 

In terms of resources, prior to 2012, I criticized the Federal Government for not doing enough. Since 2012, however, I have seen 

some real progress. Make no mistake, the effect of these enhanced 

efforts can be measured in lives saved. Nevertheless, Puerto Rico’s 

murder rate is still the highest in the country, averaging nearly 

two homicides a day. 

While I know DOJ is doing great work in Puerto Rico, I have 

candidly told Attorney General Holder and FBI Director Comey 

that the Department must do more. This is not just my personal 

opinion. In both the 2013 and 2014 CJS appropriations bills, Congress directed the Attorney General to assess whether there were 

sufficient DOJ personnel and resources assigned to Puerto Rico, to 

identify additional resources that may be necessary, and to brief 

Congress on the findings. 

In light of this background that I am giving you, I have two 

questions, and depending on time, I might follow up on the sentencing guidelines’ issue. 

First, what specific steps, including any new initiatives, is DEA 

undertaking to combat drug related violence in Puerto Rico? 

And second, I understand that the DEA has incentives in place 

to encourage agents to relocate to Puerto Rico and to remain there 

beyond their initial period of service. However, I have learned from 

agents assigned to the Caribbean Division that there appear to be 

inconsistencies in how agents have been treated under this incentive program. 

I am concerned about the possible effect this could have on mission performance, so I would like you to give me your views on this 

issue. 

I see time is kind of expiring on me. On this sentencing guidelines issue, let’s set the record straight, you are not the one setting 

policy on the Administration’s handling of sentencing guidelines; 

correct? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is correct. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. So, your views are just your personal views; is 

that correct? 

Ms. LEONHART. My agency views, my views as a law enforcement 

officer and as a DEA special agent, but these issues are presented 
32 

by the Department of Justice, and we support the Attorney General 

in his initiatives. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. And until Congress revises or changes the sentencing guidelines, your commitment is to go after major drug traffickers as opposed to low level drug offenders; is that correct? 

Ms. LEONHART. That is correct, and that has always been DEA’s 

mission. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Even before your tenure? Are you sure of that? 

Ms. LEONHART. It has always been DEA’s mission to go after organizations, major drug traffickers, and we even made a change in 

2002. We started our own Smart on Crime initiative, and that was 

priority targeting and the kingpin list. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. I will go back to Puerto Rico, but frankly, there 

is an issue here, because the statistics do not seem to—they are not 

consistent with what you are claiming has been DEA positions for 

so long. There is a problem here because the statistics do not confirm that. 

But at least you are saying you are not going to be going after 

low level drug users, is that correct, or drug offenders? 

Ms. LEONHART. No, we go after organizations that are causing 

the most violence in a community, are responsible for the majority 

of the supply in a community, are the most violent, and those are 

the heads of organizations. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. If you could allow the witness to address my questions 

on Puerto Rico, the ones that were specific about Puerto Rico, I 

would really appreciate it. 

Mr. GOWDY. Absolutely. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. If you will allow her to answer. 

Mr. GOWDY. Absolutely; yes, sir. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you. 

Ms. LEONHART. On your first question about new initiatives, we 

have seen an increase in productivity by our office in Puerto Rico. 

In fact, I was talking to the special-agent-in-charge, and we are up 

about 20 percent in major investigations. We are up over 80 percent in the number of Title III intercepts that we are doing of these 

major traffickers. 

More importantly, I have over the past several years increased 

the staffing in Puerto Rico. What really hurt was during sequestration and the tough budget years, we were not able to hire. Our first 

full graduation class graduated last week or 10 days ago, and out 

of that class of 45 was our first chance to put new agents in Puerto 

Rico. Out of those 45 graduates, three of those graduates are headed to Puerto Rico. 

We prioritized ahead of the Southwest Border and ahead of our 

major offices that have had lots of vacancies because I am about 

600 agents down—we prioritized Puerto Rico so that they can get 

there and assist with the enforcement progress that we have seen 

in Puerto Rico. 

On the other, on incentives, when we have met, you know, I have 

told you I am committed to do what we can do to help Puerto Rico, 

and that is why I traveled to Puerto Rico. 

One of the things I heard was that there was a new incentive 

that the Department of Justice had approved for our components, 
33 

and that was to given extended assignment incentives to agents 

who had been transferred to Puerto Rico and after a number of 

years, an incentive to stay there, start paying those. 

I approved that policy, and we started paying them. When we 

started paying them, some of the people who were getting another 

kind of bonus were paid incorrectly, and we are still correcting 

that, but I had approved the extended assignment incentives, and 

those agents have been getting paid. 

So, I would be glad to come and talk to you about the specifics, 

but know that you have a brand new incentive that will not get the 

agent to Puerto Rico, but it will help the agents assigned to Puerto 

Rico decide to continue a tour longer than the standard three/four/ 

five years in Puerto Rico. I think that will help you be able to 

maintain very good talent in Puerto Rico. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico, and the 

Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina and 

the Chairman. I do appreciate you being here. I want to thank the 

men and women throughout your agency who do a very difficult 

job. I have seen them in action. I have enjoyed going out on ride 

along’s to see how they do things firsthand. 

They are professional and they do a very difficult job. I just want 

them to also know how much we care and appreciate what they do 

and how they do it, and are not thanked enough for the difficult 

job they have ahead of them, and to their spouses and loved ones 

who worry about them when they are out there doing their jobs. 

I just want to say thank you. 

I want to talk about prescription drugs for a moment. There is 

some concern that perhaps in the prescription drug process that 

there is maybe not as much involvement with those along the chain 

there, that your lack of interaction and communication and input 

from those who are dealing with these controlled substances, 

whether they be the drug stores themselves, those who are writing 

the prescriptions, and the consumers. 

What is it that you are doing to make sure that you understand 

that process, what they are going through, and that they are included as you move along to set up the rules and boundaries, and 

the second part of that is what sort of recourse do they have? 

If you have some new rule, are they allowed an opportunity to 

have some sort of recourse and interaction with you? 

Ms. LEONHART. Thank you for the question. You know, you were 

not here when I said it earlier, we consider everyone in the chain, 

that closed chain of distribution—we consider everyone partners, 

and we all have to do our part, and that is what will stop diversion. 

So, we have over the past several years implemented a number 

of ways to improve communication. I can tell you more recently we 

have done some things to improve that communication. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And I guess, not to cut you off here—I am sure 

there is a much more elaborate process and there are things that 

I am not aware of that I would like to become aware of. Is that 

something you can share with this Committee or with my office? 

I would sincerely appreciate it. 

Ms. LEONHART. Yes. 
34 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Because I do think there are people who are wondering what is the formal process or recourse for when you are 

going through one of the things, as we wrap up here, the disposing 

of prescription drugs. For instance, that was put into law that you 

were to implement that. 

It took years for you to come up with a process to do this. It 

seems rather simple to me. I am sure there are a number of gyrations and things you have to go through in order to get it just right. 

It took an exceptionally long period of time. Nevertheless, I am 

glad it is there. 

But it was stone silence on figuring out where you were at, how 

long it would take in order to get there. In general, are you going 

to be able to go to a pharmacist or a pharmacy or drug store and 

be able to dispose of prescription drugs that you did not consume 

or did not need? Is that something you are going to be able to readily do? 

Ms. LEONHART. The new disposal regulations that we put out are 

going to allow Americans on a 24/7 basis a way to dispose of their 

drugs, and one of the things they will be able to do is participating 

pharmacies will have receptacles, some of them will also have mail 

back programs that will be available. 

Citizens can also go to their participating hospitals and clinics 

and those that have a pharmacy in-house are allowed the same 

rules and will be able to have receptacles or mail back programs. 

We also thought it was very important to preserve the ability to 

have community groups partner with law enforcement to have periodic take back programs. 

So, we have made sure that we have covered the whole gamut 

from pharmacies, hospitals, clinics, police departments and community groups, and included a way for people within the VA to do it 

as well, and long term care facilities. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I look forward to following up with you on that. 

It is a keen interest to people in my district and some of the hospitals and pharmacists in our district. I look forward to following 

up with you on that program, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Utah. The Chair now 

recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Chair. Actually, I wanted to follow up on 

this issue of prescription drugs because I have been contacted by 

my pharmacies who are very concerned about this as well. 

It has come to my attention that there have been cases where individuals who suffer chronic pain have faced challenges accessing 

properly prescribed pain medication. I am concerned that some 

pain sufferers are not able to gain such access. 

For example, take the case of Karen Westover of Newport 

Richey, Florida who had one knee cap removed and suffers from 

fibromyalgia. She has had pharmacies deny her prescriptions many 

times over the past couple of years. 

On one occasion, Walgreens initially refused to fill her prescription because Westover did not live within five miles of the store. 

When it was confirmed by the pharmacist that she lived within 

three miles of the store, Westover was still unable to get her prescription filled. 
35 

Now, I understand that pharmacies have been tightening their 

rules after the DEA has imposed record fines on pharmacies based 

on allegations that they were not scrutinizing questionable prescriptions, but I do believe that a careful balance has to be struck 

between attacking the prescription drug abuse epidemic while not 

preventing legitimate patients from accessing pain medications. 

It is for this reason that I am proud to be an original co-sponsor 

of H.R. 4709, the ‘‘Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act,’’ which was introduced by another Member of this 

Committee, Tom Marino, and passed by the House in July. I believe that this bill would foster communication transparency between industry and the DEA. 

So, Ms. Leonhart, could you comment on how the bill could help 

in ensuring that patients with legitimate prescriptions for pain are 

not being denied their prescriptions at pharmacies, and could you 

expand on what the DEA is doing to ensure access for these patients? 

Ms. LEONHART. Well, I thank you for your question because this 

balance is very important to us. You know, we have a responsibility 

to make sure that patients that need the medication have it available, and at the same time, make sure that those that are participating in diversion are investigated by us, whether they are the 

pharmacy, the doctor, the retail distributor, or the wholesaler. 

I, too, get calls and letters from people concerned about not being 

able to get their medications. We have followed up on a number of 

them, and one of the things we have found is that often when 

someone has gone to fill a prescription, the pharmacist will say ‘‘I 

am out of my DEA quota.’’ There is no DEA quota to a pharmacy. 

What has happened is because of the explosion of the prescription drug problem, you have a number of people, drug seekers, with 

invalid prescriptions, going and getting their prescriptions filled, 

and that is the reason people with legitimate needs when they go 

to try to get it, they cannot get their prescriptions. 

So, we are working very closely with the pharmacies. In fact, we 

did a training last week in Phoenix. We call them ‘‘pharmacist drug 

awareness conferences.’’ We have done them in over 20 locations. 

We will continue to do that. 

What we are finding out is that by sitting down together and 

going through what the drug problem is, we go through all the 

methods of diversion, we go through what the corresponding responsibility is, we feel that in those locations where we have done 

that, we walk away feeling that the pharmacists are better aware 

of what their responsibilities are. 

We are hoping that a lot of the efforts we have put in place, such 

as the pill mills that were shut down in Florida that now really is 

part of the reason that Florida has a 50 percent lower overdose 

rate currently, that these different things we have put in place over 

the last couple of years will ensure and help make sure the patients who have a valid prescription will be able to get their medications. 

Even in the enforcement actions we take, we take that into consideration if we take an action on one pharmacy, what is that going 

to do to the patients who depend on that pharmacy. We take that 
36 

**See page 25. 

all into consideration, and it is not lost on us, the importance of 

making sure that the balance is right. 

Ms. CHU. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from California. The Chair 

will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia for any closing remarks he thinks are appropriate. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, I would like to introduce for the record—we have right now 

two case histories. 

One points out that a girlfriend, Stephanie George, was sentenced based on 500 grams of crack that her boyfriend had, and 

she was given a life sentence. She did have a prior record. Because 

she had let him leave his crack there, she was part of the conspiracy, and the weight of the conspiracy on which the sentencing 

was based on was 500 grams. 

I mentioned Kemba Smith. This is an outline of her case. Her 

boyfriend was dealing crack. She ended up with 24.5 years. Both 

of these were subject to presidential commutations. 

There are as I indicated hundreds, possibly thousands of people 

in jail today on low level, non-violent offenses for which their sentences of over 10 years must have been a product of mandatory 

minimums. 

I would like these in the record and unanimous consent to introduce others as they come in.** 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Well, while my friend from Virginia was talking, I could not help 

but think, Madam Administrator, about the awesome power that 

prosecutors and law enforcement agents and officers have that play 

an incredibly important role in our society, but the awesome power 

to accuse and to then prosecute and ultimately sentence should be 

sobering for all of us. 

But it is also a nice opportunity in conclusion for me to again 

thank you, women and men of DEA, who do an incredibly difficult 

job. 

You do not have to see it up front. Guys like Marino and others 

have seen it up front. You do not have to see it up front to appreciate how difficult it is to be in law enforcement. 

If you could just let the folks know that, and in conclusion, I just 

made a couple little notes. If you do have an opportunity to sit 

down with Congressman Marino, I would encourage you to do it. 

Tommy has a very compelling life narrative. I have the pleasure of 

sitting beside him. 

The way he came to become a prosecutor, working in the family 

business. U.S. attorney. State prosecutor. I know that you all 

would have a whole lot more in common than you would have differences. If you have an opportunity to sit down with Tommy, I 

would appreciate that. 

Anything you can do to work with drug companies so they view 

themselves as partners as opposed to targets, I would be grateful 

for, and continue to express your opinion with respect to matters 

related to sentencing reform, and the virtues of mandatory minimums or the shortcomings, as you see them. 
37 

You know, I keep coming back to the biggest point of distinction 

between a safety valve or Rule 35 and 5K 1.1 and what the Attorney General has proposed is cooperation with law enforcement. I 

just do not think it is asking too much of those that want to benefit 

from a reduction in sentencing that they cooperate with law enforcement. I think that is a legitimate expectation. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. As I indicated, additional case studies have come on. 

One is Bonnie Di’Toro who was in the next room when her boyfriend sold an undercover agent a lot of cocaine. She received a 15 

year mandatory minimum. Mandy Martinson was essentially sentenced for her boyfriend’s offenses and received a mandatory of 15 

years. 

I would like these also entered into the record. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

Mr. GOWDY. I will again say what I said earlier to my friend 

from Virginia, if either of those two defendants had somebody as 

capable as you defending them, they would not be in prison at all, 

because mere presence at the scene of a crime is not a crime. 

But because I do respect the gentleman from Virginia, I am going 

to read the cases because I told him I would. Again, it reminds us 

of the awesome power law enforcement has, judges and prosecutors, and they should be ministers of justice and not just try to rack 

up as many convictions as they can rack up. 

So, with that, this concludes today’s hearing. I want to thank our 

witness for attending. Without objection, all Members will have 5 

legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. 

Mr. GOWDY. And with that, thank you, Madam Administrator. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(45) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

Æ